Are transrectal ultrasonically guided biopsies required for the accurate diagnosis of carcinoma of the prostate? Can digitally guided systematic biopsies offer an acceptable alternative?

• Published in: British journal of urology Vol. 76; no. 2; p. 187
• Main Authors: Figueiredo, A J, Seeni, K, Anson, K M, Furtado, A J, Miller, R A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.08.1995
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biopsy, Needle - methods; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Palpation; Patient Satisfaction; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Ultrasonography, Interventional
• ISSN: 0007-1331
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.1995.tb07672.x

To compare the diagnostic yield of ultrasonically guided and digitally guided systematic biopsies of the prostate. Fifty two patients with suspected but unproven carcinoma of the prostate underwent simultaneous transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided and digitally guided systematic biopsies of the prostate. A mean of 12 cores was obtained from each patient. On average more cores were obtained with TRUS guidance (mean 6.7) than with digital guidance (mean 5.3). Cancer was detected in 19 patients and the diagnosis was made by both techniques in 16. Two patients had tumour detected only with TRUS guidance and one only with digital guidance. No complications occurred. This study indicates that there is no significant difference between TRUS guidance and digital guidance to direct systematic biopsies of the prostate. The use of routine TRUS in screening programmes is now in doubt.